The Latest from Iran (18 August): A Letter and A Call for Bombing

2055 GMT: Sports Section. Football star Ali Karimi, who was released by his club Steel Azin this week, apparently for drinking water during training and thus breaking the daylight fast of Ramadan, was in the stadium tonight for Steel Azin's match with Kerman Copper. He was applauded by the crowd.

2035 GMT: Speech Round-Up (Opposition Edition). Rah-e-Sabz has more on Mir Hossein Mousavi's latest statement that 30 years of the Islamic Republic are being challenged to "save the cobwebs of tyrants". And the website summarises Mehdi Karroubi's on-line chat with readers: he will participate in a Qods Day rally in September, for which planning is under way. He said that the current Government is not religious nor a republic, and the Iranian people will have decide about a a religious or secular government in the future.

The Facebook page supporting Mousavi has an English translation of his statement.

NEW Iran Document: Nourizad’s Last Letter to Supreme Leader “The 10 Grievances”
NEW Iran Feature: Sanctions, Iranians, and YouTube’s “Life in a Day” (Esfandiary)
UPDATED Iran Special: Have Fars (& Revolutionary Guard) Faked a Reformist “Confession” on Election?
Iran Video: “His Excellency” Ahmadinejad Interviewed by George Galloway (15 August)
UPDATED Iran Analysis: What Has Green Movement Achieved? (Sahimi)
The Latest from Iran (17 August): The Green Movement, Ahmadinejad, and a “Confession”

2030 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The Revolutionary Court has confiscated the house belonging to the parents of student activist Abed Tavanche.

2025 GMT: Speech Round-Up (Khamenei Edition). The Supreme Leader's focus --- despite all the tensions within the Iranian system, including the challenges to the President --- was beyond Tehran today. It was all about the US and Iran's nuclear programme: "What they say, our president and others are saying, that we will negotiate -- yes we will, but not with America because America is not negotiating honestly and like a normal negotiator. Put away the threats and put away the sanctions."

So the line is drawn: unless Washington pulls back both unilateral and United Nations sanctions (or gives private assurances to Tehran that they will be withdrawn if progress is made on an uranium enrichment deal), there will be no post-Ramadan negotiations: "On one hand they threaten us and impose sanctions and show an iron hand, and on the other hand they want us at the negotiating table. We do not consider this as negotiations. Experience has shown that when they cannot answer logic, they bully... we will not budge under pressures and we will respond to these pressures in our own way."

2005 GMT: Controlling the Net. Global Voices Advocacy documents the Iranian regime's crackdown on bloggers and social media.

2000 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour, a postgraduate student at Oxford University, has been released from detention after 60 days in solitary confinement.

1910 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Almost as soon as his latest letter to the Supreme Leader --- published in EA today --- appeared, journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad has been summoned back to Evin Prison.

Nourizad was on temporary leave from his 3 1/2-year sentence for the letters to Ayatollah Khamenei and the head of the judiciary, Sadegh Larijani.

Women's rights activist Mahboubeh Karami has been released on $50,000 bail.

1805 GMT: Khamenei Speaks. The Supreme Leader is currently setting out Iran's foreign policy in a speech. Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic News Agency has summarised his line --- denouncing the "stupidity" of the "military threat" to Iran --- in a meeting earlier today with the heads of Iran's three branches of Government.

More later....

1745 GMT: US-Iran Front. Has the Supreme Leader just thrown cold water on discussions over Tehran's uranium enrichment? This just in from his office's Twitter feed: "Iran's Leader emphasized that negotiation with USA under threat and pressure is not possible. We won't negotiate with anybody in this way."

1735 GMT: Nokia Siemens and Iran. An interesting twist on the claim, highlighted in a lawsuit by detained journalist Isa Saharkhiz (see 0830 GMT), that Nokia Siemens sold and provided to Iran "surveillance technology and equipment for monitoring of wireless networks and the internet".

Fars News claims that the malicious Stuxnet worm has been introduced onto Iranian computer systems via Siemens software.

1715 GMT: Parliament v. President. MP Heshmatollah Fallahatpisheh, a member of the Majlis National Security Commission, has linked the 1953 coup --- whose anniversary is tomorrow --- to today's events. Fallahatpisheh claims Iran's main problem is mismanagement and that the overthrow of the Mossadegh Government almost 60 years ago "shows that the biggest harms were inflicted upon the country when Parliament was weak". The Majlis, he asserted, must be at the head of affairs.

From the reformist side, Nasrullah Torabi has stated, "A sand fog of sedition and flattering prevents the truth from being revealed," and maintained, "Patience and victory are old friends."

But Ahmadinejad's camp has struck back. MP Hamidreza Taraghi of the Motalefeh party has criticised "some conservatives want to pass over the President and many senior officials". And the President's spokesman Ali Akbar Javanfekr declared, "During the 9th Presidential elections [of 2005], people didn't vote for conservatives, but for Ahmadinejad." (An EA correspondent asks, "But what about the 10th elections of 2009?")

1710 GMT: Women's Rights and the Green Movement. A challenge to leading activist Zahra Rahnavard from a blogger, who claims that Rahnavard has distorted "feminism" by saying that hijab can be imposed by the system like traffic laws, but women should accept it "with love" and not by force.

1705 GMT: Economy Watch. Deutsche Welle follows up the latest news from Iranian media on unemployment by noting that the jobless rate has doubled since President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005.

1635 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Daneshjoo News claims that intelligence officials are behind the transfer of student activist Majid Tavakoli from Evin Prison, where he was seen as the leader of the "riot" of the 17 hunger strikers, to Rajai Shahr Prison.

1620 GMT: Breaking (and Significant?) News. Fars News is reporting that the heads of the three branches of Government --- President Ahmadinejad, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, head of judiciary Sadegh Larijani --- have met with the Supreme Leader. And it appears that Hashemi Rafsanjani, as head of the Expediency Council, was also there.

No details of the discussion are posted.

1505 GMT: Opposition Remarks. Green Correspondents features comments by Mehdi Karroubi in an on-line conversation with readers, and Kalemeh carries a statement by Mir Hossein Mousavi --- with a clear eye on the furour surrounding Ahmadinejad top aide Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai --- on Iran and Islam.

1445 GMT: War Chatter. The US talking-shop on a possible Israel attack on Tehran continues, though --- apart from the Bomb Iran editorial in The Washington Times (see 0700 GMT) --- the fever seems to have lessened today.

Gary Sick makes an incisive intervention on the Command Central set up at The Atlantic magazine --- "[This] is so transparently pushing the 'threat' of an Israeli attack in order to get the US to do something utterly foolish, that I have a very hard time even writing about it" --- before handing over to Joshua Pollack's commentary, "Some Straight Talk About Iran".

1300 GMT: Iran's Ramadan Music Ban. For days, we have been following the story that an Islamic prayer called "Rabbana,” sung by musical legend Mohammad Reza Shajarian and traditionally aired on Iranian state television and radio during the holy month, has yet to be broadcast during Ramadan.

This year, another version of the prayer, sung by a different singer, is reportedly being aired, leading to speculation that Shajarian has been "blacked out" because of his post-election criticism of the Government.

Now a twist: an Iranian state television official in charge of religious programming, Parviz Farsijani, said Shajarian's version has not been banned and that it could be aired in the coming days. However, Fars News is devoting its headling story to a lengthy denunciation of Shajarian's views on politics and religion and his association with the "Great Satan".

1255 GMT: Economy Watch. The Iranian Labor News Agency reports that unemployment of workers aged 15 to 29 has reached 26.1%.

1245 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Switzerland has imposed new economic restrictions against Iran.

1225 GMT: Parliament v. President. Key member of Parliament Ali Motahari says that the initiative by some conservative MPs to summon the President to the Majlis, to answer questions on his refusal to implement laws and on other subjects, is proceeding.

At least 1/4 of the Parliament --- 73 members --- have to join the initiative for Ahmadinejad to be compelled to appear.

According to MP Vali Esmaili, a protest letter against Presdiential chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, written by the reformist Mohajedin of Islamic Revolution party and signed by 183 MPs, will be sent to Ahmadinejad's office tomorrow. The letter was written and circulated after a discussion between 20 MPs and the President failed to find a resolution.

1220 GMT: The University Crisis. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, after a meeting with the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, has said --- contrary to reports in outlets like Fars News --- the status of Islamic Azad University has not been decided and must be resolved by the Supreme Leader.

Control of the University system, which has 1.2 million students, is between disputed between Rafsanjani, the Parliament, and President Ahmadinejad.

1214 GMT: The Hunger Strike. Kayvan Samimi, Abdollah Momeni, and Bahman Ahmadi Amoui --- three of the 17 political prisoners who were on hunger strike --- have been moved out of solitary confinement. Thirteen other detainees (one was recently released) were put back into the ward for political prisoners a few days ago.

1210 GMT: Tough Talk This Week. The head of the operations department of Iran’s armed forces, Ali Shadmani, says Tehran has three contingency plans to confront “any possible aggression”, “undoubtedly” bringing an enemy to its knees: 1) closing the Strait of Hormuz and controlling it; 2) dealing with US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; 3) "Israel is the U.S.A.'s backyard. Therefore, we will destroy the peace at that backyard."

1205 GMT: Bank Squeeze? Rah-e-Sabz offers an overview of what it claims is a crisis in Iran's banking sector.

1155 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Rah-e-Sabz reports that the latest session in the trial of journalist Emad Baghi was held yesterday.

0920 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Press TV, from Iranian Students News Agency, reports on an address by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to academics and students at Tehran University on Tuesday: “People, parties and statesmen should be prudent in maintaining unity against foreign meddling and mischief so as to disappoint enemies in fulfilling their vicious objectives....Unity and trust prevents the arrogant powers from taking advantage of their psychological warfare and safeguards the Islamic Republic ensuring the future of the country."

0830 GMT: Lawsuit. Radio Zamaneh has further information on the lawsuit filed in a US federal court by detained journalist Isa Saharkhiz and his son Mehdi against Nokia Siemens and its subsidiaries for the “sale and provision of surveillance technology and equipment for monitoring of wireless networks and the internet to Iran”.

0730 GMT: "Blogfather" on Trial. The sister of Hossein Derakhshan, journalist and one of the first prominent Iranian bloggers, writes that the third session of his trial was held in late July.

Derakhshan was arrested in November 2008 after he returned to Iran from Canada, where he had been living for eight years.

Some Iranian media have stoked up pressure for a heavy sentence on Derakhshan by claiming he is part of a UK intelligence network. An article in Mashreq, quoted by outlets such as the Revolutionary Guard-linked Javan, claims that the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London trains British diplomats and intelligence operatives, with funding from UK intelligence agencies. The report alleges 13 "escaped" Iranian journalists have applied for scholarships to take courses in the SOAS Centre for Media Studies --- Derakhshan is listed as one of the alumni of the programme.

0715 GMT: Iran MediaWatch. Asia newspaper has been banned and Sepidar and Parastou have lost their licences to publish.

0700 GMT: We begin this morning with two features. We have posted the "sixth and last" letter from Mohammad Nourizad, the journalist and filmmaker detained and now sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, to the Supreme Leader. And we have a story by Negar Esfandiary on Iranians, YouTube, and US sanctions.

Meanwhile....

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

The statement of John Bolton, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to the UN, about the start-up of Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor (see yesterday's updates) may have been wildly inaccurate --- it has nothing to do with any pursuit of a military nuclear programme --- but his call for an Israeli airstrike on Iran by 21 August has had an effect.

This morning, the editors of The Washington Times pronounce, "Bombs Away in Three Days: It's Time to Strike Iran's Nuclear Program", concluding, "The time has come to demonstrate resolve in face of an imminent threat from Iran. The Free World depends on Israeli power."

The Latest from Iran (17 August): The Green Movement, Ahmadinejad, and a "Confession"

2040 GMT: Parliament v. President. Another possible front in the escalating battle between the Majlis and the Government: Hamidreza Katouzian, the head of the Majlis Energy Commission has said that, after the Government failed to offer a charter for the National Iranian Oil Company, Parliament will vote on its own charter next week.

2030 GMT: The Cleric's Challenge. Green Voice of Freedom summarises the Ramadan speech of Ayatollah Dastgheib: "The Supreme Leader is part of the Constitution, not above it."

1845 GMT: The Battle Within. Two more articles picking up on the growing challenge to President Ahmadinejad: Abbas Djavadi for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Mahan Abedin for Asia Times Online.

1440 GMT: We have posted a separate feature, following up our earlier updates, on what appears to be a Fars News effort (possibly instigated by the Revolutionary Guard) to discredit leading reformist Mostafa Tajzadeh, detained in Evin Prison, through a supposed "confession" that Mir Hossein Mousavi lost the 2009 election.

NEW Iran Special: Have Fars (& Revolutionary Guard) Faked a Reformist “Confession” on Election?
NEW Iran Video: “His Excellency” Ahmadinejad Interviewed by George Galloway (15 August)
NEW Iran Analysis: What Has Green Movement Achieved? (Sahimi)
Iran Document: Mohammad Khatami on Religion, the Islamic Revolution, and the Republic (15 August)
Iran’s Battle Within: Ahmadinejad Appeals to Supreme Leader (Rafiee)

1335 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Mehdi Karroubi, meeting a group of young reformists, has declared, that the opposition "movement is not limited to one person, medi,a or group". Criticising the deceitful and fraudulent remarks and actions of the government and the repression of the people, he advised his listeners to see beyond partisan lines and always stay loyal to their fundamental beliefs and values.

Karroubi concluded that victory would inevitably be achieved with patience and perseverance.

1105 GMT: Reports indicate that an Iranian F4 fighter jet has crashed in the south of the country near the nuclear power plant being established at Bushehr.

1055 GMT: The University Crisis. Fars News is claiming that Abdollah Jasbi, the head of Islamic Azad University, will soon be stepping down.

If true, the development would be a setback for former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is trying to maintain influence over Iran's largest university system, with 1.3 million students, as President Ahmadinejad tries to take control of it.

1020 GMT: The Tajzadeh Election "Confession". An EA source says that the claimed video on Fars News of a detained reformist "confessing", "We lost the elections", is not from Evin Prison and could be in connection to a previous Presidential election. The source also says the audio may have been manipulated, thus the need for subtitles to give the "correct" interpretation.

1005 GMT: Fars News Special "Mostafa Tajzadeh: "We lost the elections". Fars News is pushing a video that it claims is the secretly-filmed confession of senior reformist and former Deputy Minister of Interior Mostafa Tajzadeh, speaking to fellow detainees Abdullah Ramezanzadeh and Mohsen Safai-Farahani.

Tajzadeh allegedly says, "I have experience in handling elections, so I know what happened. It is possible than one or two million votes have been displaced,we would have gotten 14-15 million votes. Not 25. We have lost the elections."

We cannot guarantee authenticity of the video. We are carrying out checks and also monitoring any reaction.

0950 GMT: War Chatter. An EA correspondent notes a discussion on Voice of America of the provocative "analysis" by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic --- which we considered last week on EA --- projecting a likely Israeli airstrike on Iranian facilities.

0940 GMT: How to Handle the US Government and the Stoning Issue. Keyhan responds to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statement criticising the death sentences of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, condemned for adultery, and three other prisoners:

Hillary Clinton, the wife of former US President Bill Clinton, still has to use her husband's name despite becoming Secretary of State. Taking advantage of the exploitative and perverse principle of freedom of choice which Hillary Clinton speaks about, Bill Clinton betrayed her and had a lengthy illicit relationship with his secretary Monica Lewinski which even in the promiscuous US society became a major scandal. Furthermore, Condoleezza Rice was notorious in the media for being promiscuous in her relationships.

0920 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. An EA correspondent reports that the memoirs of former Hashemi Rafsanjani have been withdrawn from bookstands in Iran only a few weeks after they went on sale. (Could that be because of possible comparisons between the Iranian Government of the 1980s and the Iranian Government of today?)

In his introduction, Rafsanjani writes that his "hard-working staff" have copied all his diaries to CD ROM and stored them in a safe location. That's a message for Iran's security forces: if you raid the former President's offices, you won't get the original of his memoirs.

0855 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran claims that the officials of Ward 350 of Evin Prison have cancelled the mosque privileges of prisoners during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

0845 GMT: The Hunger Strike. Advar News reports that three of the 17 political prisoners who have recently ended their hunger strike --- Abdollah Momeni, Bahman Ahmadi Amoui, and Keyvan Samimi --- are still in solitary confinement.

0825 GMT: Execution (Ashtiani) Watch. Following President Ahmadinejad's assurance that cases of death sentences by stoning were "insignificant" (see 0745 GMT), the Iranian Foreign Ministry has told other countries to stay out of the discussion over Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman whose scheduled execution has received international attention: "Independent nations do not allow other countries to interfere in their judicial affairs....Western nations must not pressurise and hype it (the case) up....Judicial cases have precise procedures, especially when it concerns murder."

0745 GMT: We have just posted the video of the interview of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed as "His Excellency", by former British MP and current Press TV host George Galloway. The two men share their agreement on Iran's nuclear programme, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Palestine/Gaza before Galloway offers this hard-hitting challenge on "internal Iranian questions":

GALLOWAY: I have police protection in London from the Iranian opposition because of my support for your election campaign. (Galloway is referring to an incident this winter when he was heckled at a post-election meeting in the Houses of Parliament.) I mention this so you know where I'm coming from....

The events after the election were a kind of mini-political earthquake, a section of the population rejecting the results and a section of them openly attacking the Islamic system itself. Can I ask you, "What does the Green Movement mean to you?"

AHMADINEJAD: ....There are people in the Islamic Republic of Iran who continue to criticise and attack the President, and they are sure that nobody is going to harass them. They have peace of mind and they are comfortable. We really have free and democratic elections in this country, and people are the main element of elections, and people are also the executors of elections....

The other point is the conspiracy and plans of the United States and its allies. Before the elections, they had announced they would do everything possible to prevent the Government of Ahmadinejad to be re-elected....

At the end of the day, we see 14 million people have not voted for me. So it will be quite natural if you see number of demonstrators reach 14 million, but the number of the protestors was very insignificant. The people of Iran are very much united....

[The President then speaks of the opposition "within the system", describing Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohammad Khatami but not naming them.]

GALLOWAY: Are they still inside the system?

AHMADINEJAD: Almost in the system. Of course, the people don't want them any longer. People have not voted for them. They have been successively defeated [during the Government's] two terms....

The post-election events was on the basis of a project made in the country and it was implemented inside the country among a limited number of people. The Islamic Republic of Iran did not intend to take a harsh attitude toward them....We have managed the situation with minimum cost....

GALLOWAY: Every so often an issue comes along which is seized upon by the enemies of Iran and magnified and it becomes a heavy problem. One such is the punishment scheduled originally against a woman convicted of adultery [Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani], the so-called stoning case.

I see that President Lula from Brazil has asked Iran if he can take this woman into exile there to solve this problem. Can Iran agree to this?

AHMADINEJAD: The number of such people [sentenced to death by stoning] is very, very insignficant. I talked to a judge at the end of the day, and judges are independent. But I talked to the head of the judiciary and the judiciary does not also agree with such a thing....I think there is no need to create some trouble for President Lula to take her to Brazil. We are keen to export our technology to Brazil....I think the problem is so limited.

0655 GMT: We begin this morning with Muhammad Sahimi's analysis, "What Has the Green Movement Achieved?"

Meanwhile....

Political Prisoner Watch

Majid Pashai, a student activist, has been given a two-year prison sentence.

War Talk

Neither the Green Movement nor political prisoners is getting a look in, however, with most US-based analysts. The Atlantic magazine --- motives to be considered in 25 words or less --- has re-made itself as Command Central for discussion of an Israeli strike on Tehran.

How far can one run with such chatter? Well, former Bush Administration official John Bolton used the news that Russia will supply uranium fuel rods to Iran's first nuclear power plant at Bushehr to claim that Israel has until 21 August to attack Iran's nuclear facilities: "Once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf."

Bolton made the claim even though Bushehr has no connnection to uranium enrichment, let alone any Iranian military nuclear programme.

Iran-Israel-US: Goldberg Journalism "If You Build This War, It Will Come"

I have read the "analysis" that may well dominate US-based chatter today: Jeffrey Goldberg's lengthy projection of high-level Israeli opinion on a aerial attack on Iran.

Here's Goldberg's hook-line:

What is [most] likely...is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran --- possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft.

Let's call this for what it is. Jeffrey Goldberg is not functioning as an analyst here. He is not even carrying out the fundamental task of a reporter. He is serving as a spokesman for the Israeli Government in its attempt to put psychological pressure on Iran, to block any resumption of talks on uranium enrichment, and possibly to push Washington into acceptance of, if not support for, Israel's military action.

Goldberg's piece has no substance as a critique of the political, diplomatic, and military situation, for it is void of any information of --- as opposed to rhetoric about --- the state of Iran's nuclear programme and its international strategy. It is void of any information about Washington's perspective and approach, including the option --- very much "on the table", to use the cliche invoked for military action --- of discussions with Tehran.

"The Arabs" do appear for a couple of sentences, but only to have their perspectives simplified and twisted into support of an Israeli attack.



Goldberg's sole attention is to pass on and elevate the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his advisors. (The author claims authority from 40+ interviews with Israelis inside and outside the government, but they are merely murmurs amidst the loud declarations of Netanyahu and equally loud projection by Goldberg.)

It may well be that Israel has decided on military action by next spring, but we don't know that and neither does Goldberg. All we really know --- and I hope, for the sake of some integrity, so does he --- is that the Israeli leadership want him to think that.

And they want him to write that --- in an "intellectual" US periodical, where the New York-Washington political corridor will pick this us as received wisdom, rather than a slick propaganda operation.

I don't write this note as a rejection of the military option. However, if a writer is going to advocate that option, it should be done so openly and honestly, not disguised as "reportage". It should be done so on the basis of information from a range of sources, locations, and perspectives, not as a conduit for the manoeuvres of one actor in the political drama.

If Goldberg's piece receives undeserved attention as a considered definition of the state of the Iran-Israel-US relationship, then I will post a detailed dissection of its artifices and distortions.

But not now. Because for me, if one is concerned with news and, indeed, issues of justice and humanity, there are matters far more important --- yes, more important than boys-and-toys posturing on aerial warfare --- to attend to today, tomorrow, and the day after that.

UPDATED Iran-US Special: The 4-Step Collapse of Obama's "Engagement" Into Confusion

UPDATE 7 August: Stephen Walt jumps in with this analysis....

Right now, Washington simply assumes that Iran won't negotiate unless it is coerced into doing so by outside pressure. At the same time, Tehran has made it clear that it wants to negotiate but refuses to do so under pressure. The predictable result is the current stalemate. You'd think the U.S. government could come up with something creative to try to overcome this impasse, instead of just hoping for a miracle.

UPDATE 0940 GMT: An interesting clue that, amidst the confusion, the discussion of US-Iran talks is very much alive. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, has said that dialogue with Washington requires the permission of the Supreme Leader.

Iran-US Special: Obama Extends His Hand “Engagement, Not Conflict”

This time yesterday I was confidently declaring that President Obama had renewed his approach for engagement with Iran. David Ignatius of The Washington Post was putting out the message, from a specially-arranged briefing of selected journalists: "President Obama put the issue of negotiating with Iran firmly back on the table Wednesday in an unusual White House session with journalists. His message was that even as U.N. sanctions squeeze Tehran, he is leaving open a 'pathway' for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue."

Ignatius' narrative fit a pattern which, while interrupted by the breakdown in nuclear discussions last October between Washington, Tehran, and other countries, was far from obsolete. Noting the recent US escalation in Afghanistan and Iran's role in any attempt at a resolution, I assessed, "While the nuclear issue was the first one to be addressed --- given its symbolic position, it had to be resolved before other matters could be tackled --- engagement with Tehran would also pay dividends for US policy in the Middle East, including Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as removing a troublesome issue in relations with Russia and China."

All very logical. Yet, within 24 hours, Obama's initiative has become a tangle of conflicting reports and political counter-attacks, taking us not towards engagement but towards the challenges I identified at the end of yesterday's analysis: "The conflict inside the Administration has taken its toll...The pressure from the US Congress [and opponents outside the Congress] — as well as the war chatter — will not evaporate."

Four Steps to Collapse:

1. THE CONFUSED MESSAGE

If, as Ignatius claims, the President was re-presenting the strategy of negotiating with Iran, others in the room failed to hear this. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic opens his account: "The session, as envisioned by his aides, was designed to convince his audience that Obama's policy of engagement joined with sanctions is having the desired effect of isolating Iran from the international community even as the country's pursuit of a bomb has not abated."

So pressure, pressure, and only pressure, as Ambinder features Administration optimism that Russia is now on Washington's side. There is not a single word in his report about negotiations.

Robert Kagan recounts, "[Obama] did make clear that the door was, of course, open to the Iranians to change their minds, that sanctions did not preclude diplomacy and engagement, and that if the Iranians ever decide they wanted to 'behave responsibly' by complying with the demands of the international community, then the United States was prepared to welcome them." This, however, is only an annex to the Pressure message: "The 'news' out of this briefing was that the administration wanted everyone to know how tough it was being on Iran."

Peter David of The Economist has perhaps the fullest account of the discussion. Like Ambinder and Kagan, he notes the Administration line that sanctions are pinching Tehran. His presentation on negotiations is not that Obama advocated them but that he pointed to the possibility:

it was important to set out for the Iranians a clear set of steps that America would accept as proof that the regime was not pursuing a bomb: they needed "a pathway". With hard work, America and Iran could thaw a 30-year period of antagonism—provided Iran began to act responsibly.

Mr Obama said that the United States had received no direct contacts from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, though high-level officials in Iran had investigated the possibility of re-engaging with the P5-plus-one (the permanent members of
the Security Council plus Germany). America would be willing to talk bilaterally to Iran "in the context" of a P5 process that was moving forward. There should meanwhile be a "separate track" on which America could co-operate with Iran on other issues, such as Afghanistan and drugs, for example.

2. THE ANTI-ENGAGEMENT COUNTER-ATTACK

Ambinder and David have not been amongst those beating the drum for confrontation with Tehran and, while Kagan has been a staunch advocate of an aggressive US foreign policy, including the 2003 Iraq war, he has been supportive of Obama's approach on sanctions.

For another journalist at the meeting, however, the agenda was how to stoke the fire of a showdown with Iran. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic omitted any reference to negotiations, whether Obama advocated them or merely saw the possibility of discussions. Instead, he fit the confusion of journalists' accounts into this pre-determined conclusion:

I am skeptical, though, about the possibilities of a diplomatic breakthrough, for two reasons, one structural, and one related to the state of Iran's opposition: The structural reason is simple; one of the pillars of Islamic Republic theology is anti-Americanism, and it would take an ideological earthquake to upend that pillar. And then there's the problem of the Green Movement. If the Iranian opposition were vibrant and strong, the regime might have good reason to be sensitive to the economic impact of the new sanctions package. But the opposition is weak and divided. The regime has shown itself to be fully capable of suppressing dissent through terror. So I'm not sure how much pressure the regime feels to negotiate with the West.

This is more than enough ammunition for those wanting to shoot down engagement. Max Boot soon wrote for Commentary: "What’s scary is that the illusions about 'outreach' in the upper reaches of this administration have still not been dispelled, despite a year and a half of experience (to say nothing of the previous 30 years of experience), which would suggest that the mullahs aren’t misunderstood moderates who are committed to “peaceful co-existence.”

3. THE FACTIONS INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION

So what exactly did happen in the Obama briefing to scramble his message? Different journalists, from their own positions or just human nature, will hear --- and even try to produce --- different messages. Kagan, without naming Ignatius, writes:

Some of the journalists present, upon hearing the president's last point about the door still being open to Iran, decided that he was signaling a brand-new diplomatic initiative. They started peppering Obama with questions to ferret out exactly what 'new' diplomatic actions he was talking about.

There's an even more important factor here, however, one that Kagan points to --- but does not fully appreciate, at least in his column --- in his next sentences:

After the president left, they continued probing the senior officials. This put the officials in an awkward position: They didn't want to say flat out that the administration was not pursuing a new diplomatic initiative because this might suggest that the administration was not interested in diplomacy at all. But they made perfectly clear -- in a half-dozen artful formulations -- that, no, there was no new diplomatic initiative in the offing.

As one bemused senior official later remarked to me, if the point of the briefing had been diplomacy, then the administration would have brought its top negotiators to the meeting, instead of all the people in charge of putting the squeeze on Iran.

Kagan's point is incomplete. The Obama Administration has been split, perhaps since it came into office, between a faction who want genuine discussions with Iran and one that only thinks of discussions as the set-up, once there is an Iranian "rejection", for tougher economic and diplomatic measures.

So those who are on the "positive" side for discussions give their perspective to Ignatius --- thus the important reference to the US involvement as Afghanistan (which is not any other account of Obama's remarks) as a factor, if not a necessity, for conversations with Iran --- and those on the "negative" side become the "bemused senior official" in Kagan's article.

Joe Klein of Time, who was also present, captures the confusion: "This was a pretty strange meeting. The President's comments were on the record; his team's comments were on background, meaning that the individuals speaking could only be identified as 'senior Administration officials'."

And that's not all. For the spinning of the story was also going on beyond Obama's briefing. As I noted yesterday in the anlaysis, one or more unnamed officials sought out George Jahn of the Associated Press, leaking two letters (or selected extracts from the letters) from Iran to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The intent --- supported by Jahn's presentation and failure to put quotes into context, let alone present the letters --- was to rule out any possibility of productive dialogue: "Letters by Tehran’s envoys to top international officials and shared with The Associated Press suggest major progress is unlikely, with Tehran combative and unlikely to offer any concessions."

Such manoeuvres  in turn prop up critics of engagement like Ed Morrissey as they put out the gospel: "Time is running out on stopping the mullahs from their doomsday pursuit, and open hands to the regime have hardly been effective over the last several years, including the last eighteen months.  Either we need to get serious about other options or concede that we’re not serious at all."

4. CAN OBAMA RESCUE HIS ENGAGEMENT?

There's even a black-comedy irony in this story. Flynt Leverett, one of the foremost advocates of a US engagement with Iran for a "grand bargain" on bilateral and regional matters, joins others in dismissing the possibility of productive discussions, not because the Administration is too "soft" (as Goldberg and Boot argue) but because of "the Administration’s maladroit handling of its diplomatic exchanges with Tehran, poor grasp of on-the-ground realities in Iran, and mixed messaging....The President feels he must call in Western journalists to signal Tehran is a sad commentary on the Obama Administration’s failure to develop a discreet and reliable channel through which to communicate with Iranian leaders."

I suspect Leverett, because of his entrenched dislike of US foreign policy, goes a bit far with his unsupported assertion of the "failure to develop a discreet and reliable channel". I'm more than a few miles away from Washington, so I can't prove that the channel is operating, but last year's history is instructive. Between July 2009, when the Administration seized on the possibility of a deal in which Iran's uranium would be enriched in a country such as Russia, and October, a channel was established between Washington and Tehran. It was not direct but rather through third parties, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, European parties, and Turkey. And it led to face-to-face talks between US and Iranian representatives at Geneva in the autumn.

Even though that effort at an agreement ran adrift, the channels were not set aside. Ankara and the European Union have been used in recent weeks to pass Washington's thoughts to Tehran (and vice versa). Obama left more than a clue in his briefing: "High-level officials in Iran had investigated the possibility of re-engaging with the P5-plus-one [US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China]." Time's Klein offers further support that the process of 2009 --- contact at working levels --- is being repeated, although he fails to recognise it is two-way:

The President confirmed that "high level" Iranians have reached out to the Obama Administration over the past months, hoping to get a dialogue restarted. The President emphasized that neither the Supreme Leader nor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have attempted to contact us, and his aides later insisted that nothing concrete was in the works.

And in Tehran, once you get past President Ahmadinejad's more outlandish postures in recent weeks, he too has been putting out references to both indirect communication with the US and to direct talks in the near-future.

The problem is not that the channel for engagement does not exist; it is the interference that distorts and even scrambles it. The President and his advisors are putting out signals , not just to Tehran but to the US Congress, to their anti-engagement critics, to Israel, and to other countries. No surprise that those signals often clash, especially when the Obama Administration has the faction within that does not even believe in engagement.

Last November, I fretted, "The US President [may] be back in the cul-de-sac: pressed by some advisors and a lot of Congressmen to pursue sanctions which offer no remedy for — and no exit from — the political dilemma of his failed engagement."

This week, with those sanctions now reality, Obama tried to get out of the cul-de-sac with his high-profile briefing. Initially I thought he had a chance; 24 hours later, I am thinking that his effort --- at least in the context of domestic politics --- never made it around the corner.